THE DEGENERATION OF NEW ZEALAND LIBERALISM.

Evening Post, Volume LIV, Issue 75, 25 September 1897, Page 2

THE DEGENERATION OF NEW ZEALAND LIBERALISM.

[By " Citizen."] IV. The question left over from my last article was — How did liberty fare during the Parliament o£ 1893-06 ? Now, there can be no doubt that the two most striking features in tbat Parliament were — (1) the decline in the quality of the members in general respect, in education, in publio spirit, and in care and deliberation, and I fear, it must be added, in morality and integrity ; and (2) its complete subjection to the will of one man. To prevent . misunderstandings, it is necessary to explain the sense in which I use the word " morality." I do not mean that in personal morality the' New Liberals or the Labour members in that Parliament were inferior to the members of preceeding Parliaments. To say anything of the kind were to do them a great injustice, for in regard to private morals they constrasted favourably with men who regarded themselves as their superiors in social position. One of the arguments most commonly used in favour of the extension of the franchise to women was that their influence in politics would tend to raise the morale of the Legislature ; and if the increase in the number of members who advocated Prohibition is to be accepted as a test, the' most " Liberal " Parliament was also the most "moral.". But apart from the fact that many of those who had pledged themselves to Prohibition were quite insincere, there can be no doubt that such a test of morality is not merely inadequate but is positively erroneous. A Prohibitionist, even when he is sincere, is not necessarily a better man than his -neighbour who happens to be a moderate drinker ; and with regard to a community, it may even be questioned, as it was by Benan, " whether a people that drank nothing but water would be the greater for it. "Would it illustrate a more beautiful page in human history ? Would it reach a higher stikdard of life and thought ?" And with regard to the Prohibition Parliament «of 1^93-6, can it be said to have been more moral than its predecessors by reason of its licensing legislation ? It is perfectly well known that neither the Government that introduced the Licensing Bills, nor all the members who voted for them, wished them to become law. They were moved by compulsion and calculation, not by conviction, and it is an evil sign when public opinion looks without serious reprobation on those whom it believes to be acting without convictions, to be playing with great national interests for party or personal endfi as if they were cards in a game or horses in a race. That this description applies to tbe action of the "Liberal" Party and its leaders in many instances, notably Prohibition and the woman's franchise, there can be no doubt, and auch condutt must be admitted to be highly immoral in the sense in which I we the word. A Party capable of acting in this way cannot be said to have a very lofty ideal. That a Liberal leader should introduce legislation in which he does not believe on a highly important subject, and should coerce his Party to pass it, betrays a degree oLturpitude and subserviency that is almost incredible, and yet tnis happened again and again. And as for Toting for resolutions against their convictions in obedience to the commands of their master, that was a matter that gave "Liberal" members of this most " Liberal" .of -Parliaments very little trouble after the first effort. The complete subjection of the "Liberal" Party to the despotic will of its master is now so notorious that it is unnecessary to enlarge further upon the theme. Even more remarkable than its subserviency on the one hand were its arrogance and despotic tendencies on the other. These qualities •were specially apparent in its attitude towards the Legislative Council, the least sign of independence on its part being treated as a thwarting of the supreme will of tfhe people. Whilst casting the rights and privileges of the people under the feet of an autocrat, the House of Bepresentatives strained to the uttermost its so-called privileges not only against the Upper House but even against the people. Privilege, which formerly was a protection against the encroachments of the Crown and the Ministry, has now come to be used by members for the purpose of securing to them the right of slandering their betters with absolute impunity. The privileges which the House of Representatives is so fond of asserting as against the Upper House are largely mere usurpations resting on no authority but its own. It has been well said that English history, from a constitutional point of view, is little else than a record of the transactions by which the prerogatives of the Crown have

been transformed into the privileges of the people. In Now Zealand, the most democratic of colonies, the privileges of the people and their representatives are being rapidly transformed by a servile Chamber into the prerogatives of an autooratic Minister. As Lord Acton said not long ago, " Achieved liberty is the one ethical achievement resting on the converging and combined conditions of advancing civilisation " ; but- it is also true that it is not liberty, but the use of it, that enobles men, and eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. And with our talk of liberty and Liberalism there is very real danger of our losing the substance whilst hugging the shadow. Tame justly observes that it was by invoking liberty and' fraternity that the Jacobins were able to " instal a despotism worthy of Dahomey, a tribunal similar to that of the Inquisition, and to accomplish human hecatombs akin to those of ancient Mexico." And it is in the name of Liberalism that in New Zealand a servile Parliament sacrificed those dearly - bought privileges of which it is the unworthy heir, and of whioh it knows neither the price nor the value. In the name of Liberty the " Liberal " Party has jobbed and exploited the commonwealth in its own selfish interests. It has sold the birthright of the people, and the price is a mere mess of pottage— the spoils and power of office. And what do the people say to such a state of matters ? Alas ! they no longer prize liberty as their greatest boon. They have bartered it for y>anem et circences. The most Liberal Government is the one that is prepared to treat the wealthy man as a social pest and to strip him of his wealth ia.< .ler to provide the panem et ciretnces (fooa and amusements) for the people. Liberty has ceased to* be an end in itself, and has become merely a means to a social end — the attainment of improved material welfare for " the People." Demagogues arise who proclaim the first duty of the State to secure the happiness of the majority by plundering the minority. As I have said, Liberalism, when it was a vital power and not a mere name, meant the struggle of the masses of the people against the selfish privileges of the aristocracy. We have no privileged aristocraoy in New Zealand, but it cannot be said that we have no privileged class. The privileged class now consists of the majority — the People — and I do not hesitate to say that such a stute of matters is even more dangerous than the other, because the evil is more widespread and consequently more difficult to remedy. The old theory — and a very erroneous one — was that only the rich were fit to regulate society; but no less mischievous is the doctrine, which demagogues are so assiduously preaching, that the government of the country should be "run" in the interests of one particular class — the People— and that it is the business of the State, of the Government, to make the rich pay for whatever the poor want. We hear a great deal now-a-days about equal political rights, but^very little about political and social duties, and matters have come to such a pass that no leading politician durst proclaim the elementary doctrine that in a free State every man must take care of himself and his family, and that auy individual that looks to the State to provide for him and his family has ceased to be free, although he has the right of voting for a member of Parliament. Cleons will always arise in a democracy to tell the people that it is the duty of the State to provide for them, to tax tbe rich for the benefit of the poor, to provide them employment at a living wage and pensions for old age without any sacrifice or effort on their own part. It is the capital error of paternal government to undertake to do all for the people, forgetting that the true end of society is not to do work, but to train workers. We shall no doubt be told that if this is despotism, then it is at any rate a benevolent despotism that seeks to procure all those good things for the people. The answer is that a benevolent despotism is the worst of all— a people's worst scourge, more mischievous than the rule of the bloodiest Caesar or the foulest and most corrupt Stuart. The most grievous treason against society is that officious zeal which paralyses the energies of the governed, chills the high - spirited into apathetic disgust, and relieves the idle of unwelcome responsibility. The spirit of self-reliance in a people, if once destroyed, can never be restored, and who can deny that this process is rapidly going on ih New Zealand? We have a despot who undertakes to provide work at a living wage for the have-nots by taxing the haves; but he makes the reservation that Liberals are entitled to a preference, so that, not content with destroying the self-reliance of the wageearners by undertaking to find or make work for them, he also makes hypocrites or "Liberals" of them — for the terms are rapidly becoming synonymous.